Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

CuraLeaf’s Cannabis connection to Russia started in New Jersey ​

For several years rumors circulated that Curaleaf, a cannabis permit holder in numerous states and a major player in New Jersey’s regulated market, had financial connections to Russia.​

After the invasion of Ukraine there were sanctions passed and the company began to receive more intense scrutiny.

It turns out that Curaleaf’s Russian roots were hardly a secret. The top management and major shareholders had a long history of working for companies in the former Soviet Union, and direct connections right to the very highest levels of today’s Russian government. Curaleaf could be described as being proud of those relationships prior to – and even after – the invasion.

Beyond mere association there was a direct connection recently revealed between Curaleaf’s early financing and the infamous Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich. Yes, the guy that owned Chelsea soccer club in the UK.

That particular financing of Curaleaf is being investigated by cannabis regulators in Connecticut and Vermont right now. I asked the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission to undertake a publicly transparent investigation into the issue as well. No word from NJCRC yet.

Curaleaf owns dozens of dispensaries in as many states, but their very first cannabis venture was here in New Jersey.

The Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act NJ was signed in January 2011 by Democrat Jon Corzine, just one week before he left office. Newly elected Republican Chris Christie – no fan of weed – was tasked with implementation. Christie delayed the process for several years, then famously boasted of rewriting the medical cannabis law by imposing a series of draconian regulations.

Christie devised a completely new structure for the concept at the time: Just six vertical operating permits for the entire state, a strict registry requirement for physicians to recommend cannabis, a 10% cap on THC content, and a regular sales taxes on products.

Gov. Christie completed his weed coup by appointing a 26-year veteran of the NJ State Police – John O’Brien – as the first director for NJ’s compassionate cannabis program. Magically, three of the first six cannabis permits went directly to Christie’s pals; one to a company called PalliaTech.

By creating the first extremely limited marijuana permit program in NJ – and selling the idea to other states at the time – Christie can be credited with helping create the modern infrastructure for corporate cannabis. It’s no mistake that many mainstream GOP political operatives are players in the space today: John Boehner, Matt Gaetz, Roger Stone are just a few.

By 2016 PalliaTech still hadn’t planted a single cannabis seed in New Jersey. They just parked on the permit and collected investments. When the company suddenly bid for a new permit in New York a familiar name showed up on the application: John O’Brien.

O’Brien’s amazing journey from career cop to NJ’s first medical marijuana program director, and then to Compliance Officer for a cannabis company that he regulated does seem perfectly written on a napkin in a Bergen County diner.

PalliaTech lost out on that first NY permit and finally focused on actually opening in NJ. Just one year later, in 2018, PalliaTech changed its name to Curaleaf.

Curaleaf grew large from that single vertical medical cannabis operating permit, playing the new game of snapping up limited weed permits across multiple states. Borrowing on previous international business experience, Curaleaf also began to trade its main stock on the exchange in Canada. This is a common scheme employed by nearly all the companies making up the relatively small corporate cannabis cartel.

Out-of-state, international corporations eventually opened all of New Jersey’s first-round of adult-use dispensaries.

Last year New Jersey passed a law barring state contracts with companies affiliated or financed through Russia or Belarus. So, now Curaleaf’s openly reported relations should raise some flags. A vertical cannabis permit certainly seems like an exclusive state contract.

We are supposed to be launching into a new era of equity ownership in NJ cannabis. It’s our responsibility to ensure our cannabis program, and more importantly our consumers, aren’t being exploited by predatory corporations or even foreign governments.

 

[Baron23]

And on the continuing topic of our idiot government at work....read this one and see if you can spot the abject stupidity and hypocrisy of the Health and Human Services on this subject. Are Fed government is basically saying that CBD is potentially harmful....wait for it...due to our refusal to regulate it. Beauty.

Federal Health Agency Issues CBD Warning, While Noting Dispensary Products May Be Safer Than Those Purchased Elsewhere​

A federal health agency has published a new advisory on what it warns are the “potential harms, side effects, and unknowns” of CBD as more Americans use the popular cannabinoid. At the same time, the government body is also implying that products purchased from state-legal marijuana dispensaries may be safer than those found at gas stations and other retailers.
CBD has appeared on store shelves across the country following Congress’s legalization of hemp in the 2018 Farm Bill, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) advisory notes that “the popularity of CBD products continues to grow.” It points to an array of form factors—including CBD-infused topicals, fabric, food and beverages—now on the market at an estimated 270,000 retailers nationwide.

“It is critical that the general public be made aware of the potential harms associated with CBD use,” the agency said in an announcement about the advisory on Thursday, “and parents, in particular, should be advised not to let their children use non-FDA-approved CBD products.”
As many as 1 in 3 Americans reported using CBD products in 2020, the report says, citing a survey conducted by the prescription discount plan SingleCare. Given the widespread use, the agency warns, “The public should be aware of the misconceptions surrounding CBD products as well as the potential harms and risks associated with their use.”


The brief advisory is not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation of CBD or its medical potential, with SAMHSA saying it “focuses on the risks and harms of CBD, especially those sold over the counter.”
Many of the dangers identified in the report—such as a lack of safety standards, poor accuracy in labeling and inconsistent quality control—result from the federally unregulated status of CBD products.

For instance, the SAMHSA advisory says that CBD concentrations “may be more or less than advertised and, because of a lack of quality control, the manufacturing process may introduce harmful biological and chemical contaminants, including the psychoactive [cannabinoid] THC.”
“The lack of safety standards, accuracy in labeling, and quality control,” the report continues, “may lead to additional concerns for unintended intoxication, particularly among children.”
Last month, FDA announced that it will not be creating rules to allow CBD to be marketed as a dietary supplement or food item despite repeated calls for administrative action from lawmakers, advocates and other stakeholders. Instead, the agency said that it wants to “work with Congress on a new way forward.” Officials also denied three citizen petitions requesting rulemaking for the marketing of CBD.

Other potential health and safety effects of CBD use, the SAMHSA report says, could include “adverse drug interactions, liver toxicity and reproductive and developmental effects.” It says more clinical research is needed to conclusively determine whether CBD products are safe and effective.
The advisory does not attempt to compare potential side effects of CBD to complications involved with prescription medications, for example opioids. A number of studies have indicated that easier access to regulated cannabis, which includes CBD products, can reduce patients’ reliance on opioids to treat conditions such as chronic pain.
So far the only FDA-approved CBD product is Epidiolex, a prescription medication that consists of purified CBD and is intended to treat a rare form of epilepsy in children.

Non-FDA approved products are marketed as a potential treatment for a wide range of other health conditions, only some of which are supported by research.
Citing survey data from 2019, the agency said that 40 percent of CBD users purchased products from marijuana dispensaries. About a third (34 percent) bought CBD from a different retail store, 27 percent shopped online and 12 percent obtained it from another source.
Cannabis retailers, which are typically licensed and heavily regulated at the state level, may offer better and more consistent CBD products than are available at national retailers, SAMSA said—a notable admission from the agency while marijuana dispensaries remain federally illegal.
“Although regulations and enforcement vary from state to state,” the advisory said, “CBD products purchased from dispensaries may be subject to some form of oversight and standardization.”
It also noted, however, that “products sold at cannabis dispensaries are not FDA-approved and may contain more than 0.3 percent THC, depending on the state’s definition of allowable CBD products.”
Consumers, businesses and even members of Congress have expressed frustration at the general lack of regulatory guidance on CBD from federal agencies. Last September, U.S. Reps. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Brett Guthrie (R-KY) sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Robert Califf demanding answers over the continued lack of regulations. Earlier this year, a key Republican lawmaker, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), pledged to take FDA officials to task with his new House chairmanship for failing to enact CBD regulations.

At DEA, meanwhile, officials recently weighed on on two other cannabinoids that can be derived from legally grown hemp: delta-8 THC-O and delta-9 THC-O, which are not naturally found in the cannabis plant but can be produced from other natural cannabinoids. DEA said that because the two cannabinoids “do not occur naturally in the cannabis plant and can only be obtained synthetically,” they do not fall under the definition of hemp and are therefore considered illegal controlled substances.
FDA also recently touted its role helping a state agency crack down on a company selling delta-8 THC gummies that they said are linked to “serious adverse events.”

 

[momofthegoons]

Veterans Advocates Criticize VA For Stalling Medical Marijuana Research At Joint Congressional Hearings​

Representatives of major Veterans Services Organization (VSOs) testified before a series of joint Senate and House committee this week and last week, voicing support for medical marijuana research and criticizing the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for “dragging their feet” on the issue.

Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Jon Tester (D-MT) asked the VSO leaders for their perspective on veterans’ use of cannabis as an alternative treatment option and where they stand on his bipartisan VA marijuana research bill that cleared his committee last month.

On Wednesday, the chairman raised the topic with members of Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), stating that “effective treatment options must be based on comprehensive research and science—and VA research should empower veterans to make informed decisions about their health.”



He asked the witnesses whether they felt “VA has been proactive in conducting research on veterans cannabis use and what can be done about it if the answer is no.”

Patrick Murray, national legislative director at VFW, said that the organization is “in favor of researching that,” and “we want to be smart about as many alternative therapies we provide for our veterans around the country as possible.”

“We don’t think VA is doing enough of a good job on that. They’ve been dragging their feet,” he said. “They’ve been saying they’ve been doing studies and research for years. We’re waiting to see the results, as everybody is. We want to see that actually get done appropriately.”

VFW Commander-in-Chief Timothy Bordland told Tester that there may be “mixed emotions” among members about cannabis policy issues, but there’s recognition that veterans with conditions such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have benefitted from medical marijuana.

“There’s a lot of veterans out there that get so much medication, they don’t know what to take half the time they have it. Some of them have poor eyesight and they take the wrong medication,” he said.

Medical cannabis “will prevent overdose,” Bordland said. “This will prevent a lot of other issues. Medical cannabis is a possible solution to help with TBI and mental health issues.”

Tester also brought up the issue during the second of the three hearings of the joint committee, asking for input from Jeremy Butler, CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA).

Butler affirmed that he “absolutely” believes that VA needs to be promoting studies into the medical efficacy of cannabis for veterans.



“We’ve been pushing for this for years,” he said. “At a minimum, VA should be doing research. I can’t even keep up with the number of states that now have legal use of medicinal cannabis.”

“At a minimum, VA should be doing this research so that we can understand just how effective it is,” he added. “Research should be a no brainer. But yet, for years, we’ve been getting pushback on that, so we certainly hope that this is the year we can change that.”

IAVA said in written testimony that it has “made it one of our top priorities to empower veterans who are calling for the medicinal use of cannabis” since 2017, pointing to internal surveys showing the vast majority of its membership aligned on that issue.

In its written testimony for the first of the joint hearings, Disabled American Veterans (DAV) also noted their support for “VA research into the medical efficacy of cannabis for treatment of service-connected disabled veterans.”

VSOs have continually highlighted cannabis research issues at the annual joint hearings for several years in a row now.

In the current Congress, Tester’s VA Medicinal Cannabis Research Act, which he introduced with Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), is intended to mandate studies by VA to explore the therapeutic potential of cannabis for veterans with PTSD and chronic pain.

Reps. Lou Correa (D-CA) and Jack Bergman (R-MI) also filed a companion bill in the House.

The bill has been revised in this latest version to give VA latitude in determining for itself whether it’s capable of overseeing clinical trials into marijuana for chronic pain and PTSD.

The significant change appears to be responsive to concerns expressed by VA officials who testified against the earlier proposals.

A previous version of the legislation cleared a House committee in 2021, despite the protests of VA officials. Earlier iterations of the measure also moved through committee in 2020 and 2018 as well, but none were enacted into law.

The legislation has been revised this Congress to include a requirement for a retroactive observation study to look into the experiences of veterans who’ve used marijuana for such treatment in the past outside of the clinical trail context.

But there’s another change that observers have picked up on as potentially giving VA the ability to avoid fulfilling a key objective on clinical trials.

Within 90 days of completion of an observational study on the effects of cannabis on PTSD and chronic pain, VA would be required to submit a report to Congress on whether it’s capable of carrying out the more robust clinical trials that were at the center of earlier forms of the legislation.

“The Secretary may terminate the clinical trials…if the Secretary determines that the Department of Veterans Affairs is unable to meet clinical guideline requirements necessary to conduct such trials or the clinical trials would create excessive risk to participant,” the bill text says.

The reason that’s important, in part, is because VA has repeatedly come out against past versions of the reform proposal, with the department suggesting that the research mandate goes too far with too many requirements. Under the new language, VA could finish the qualitative observational study and then independently decide against carrying out the clinical trial portion involving human subjects.

Other revisions in the new version include removing language that required studies to involve at least seven cannabis varieties and instead leaving that open-ended. That may help further address some of VA’s prior concerns about the measure being unduly prescriptive.

Correa had a conversation with VA Secretary Denis McDonough about the issue of marijuana and veterans last year, and so there were some heightened expectations that the department might reverse course on the legislation—but that hasn’t happened to date.

A coalition of more than 20 veterans service organizations (VSOs) sent a letter to congressional leaders late last year to urge the passage of a marijuana and veterans research bill before the end of the last Congress. But that did not pan out.

Also, a large-scale defense spending bill that was enacted at the end of the last session excluded separate language from a previously House-passed version that would have authorized VA doctors to recommend medical cannabis to veterans living in legal states.

 

[momofthegoons]

UN Suggests U.S. Federal Government Must Force States To Repeal Marijuana Legalization To Comply With International Treaty​

The United Nations’s (UN) drug control body is suggesting that the U.S. is out of compliance with a decades-old international drug treaty because the federal government is passively allowing states within the country to legalize marijuana.

While the UN’s International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) has routinely criticized countries for allowing the enactment of cannabis legalization due to their obligations under the 1961 Single Convention to maintain prohibition, a section of the new annual report report it released last week stands out by appearing to indirectly address state-level reform efforts in the U.S.



“In States with a federal structure, a special issue may arise with respect to whether the federal Government may be held accountable if a federated entity implements legalization, which violates the conventions, while the federal Government does not have the power to compel the federated entity to fulfill the treaty obligations,” the report says.

INCB said the 1961 treaty mandates that member nations must “give effect to and carry out the provisions of this Convention within their own territories,” regardless of whether or not they have a constitutionally federalist system like in the U.S.

The convention states that “unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, a treaty is binding upon each party in respect of its entire territory.”

“The internal distribution of powers between the different levels of a State cannot be invoked as justification for the failure to perform a treaty,” it asserts, without directly referencing state-level legalization in the U.S. specifically.

“The Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 explains that the question of whether a federal State is relieved from obligations under article 36, paragraph 1, of the Convention if it is unable to enact the required penal legislation on account of lack of authority under its federal constitution to do so should be answered in the negative. In the Commentary, it is noted that the lack of authority under a federal constitution would not free a party from the obligation to adopt the required measures if the states or provinces composing the federal State in question have the necessary powers.”

The practical impact of this analysis is unclear, as other UN member nations like Canada and Uruguay have outright federally legalized marijuana for adult use in clear contravention of the treaty, without any discernible consequences from the international body.

But it remains notable that the international organization is leaning on the six-decade-old treaty provision to imply that the U.S. is shirking its duties to stay in compliance by allowing states to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes without taking enforcement action.

INCB did say that more simple decriminalization of possession without allowing sales “can be considered consistent with the conventions as far as it respects the obligation to limit the use of drugs to medical and scientific purposes and under the condition that it remains within certain limits set by the conventions.”

But allowing full adult-use legalization is “in contradiction to the obligations set out in the drug control conventions,” it said.



Aside from the legalities of cannabis reform under international law, the board offered a number of criticisms against nations that have permitted legalization, and against marijuana consumption in general.

For example, it argued that the “growing availability and potency of cannabis products available on the illicit markets poses an increasing health risk.” And the authorization and expansion of legal cannabis businesses has “contributed to the normalization and trivialization of cannabis use and, consequently, to reduced perceptions of harm associated with cannabis consumption,” it said.

“Criminal organizations linked with large-scale illicit production and trafficking have benefited from the expanding demand for cannabis. This trend represents a growing challenge for the international community, mainly for the States parties to the international drug control conventions, which stipulate that, subject to the provisions of those conventions, any kind of drug use must be limited to medical and scientific purposes and that any use contrary to the provisions of the conventions should be treated as ‘punishable offences.'”

INCB acknowledged that different countries have sought to justify marijuana reform, in part, by maintaining that the policy changes support the convention’s stated goals of promoting health and safety, as well as respecting “human rights principles such as the rights to freedom, privacy and personal autonomy.”

But the board broadly responded by rejecting the arguments. However, it did acknowledge that evidence about the various implications of legalization has been mixed.

“Given this multifaceted and complex picture, it is hardly possible to make general statements and conclusions on the impact of legalization,” INCB said.

For example, the board noted that studies on youth consumption rates post-legalization have produced mixed results, with some research indicating increases in underage use, while others show stabilization or even decreases in such usage.

In the U.S., there have been numerous studies indicating that youth cannabis consumption has either remained stable or declined amid the state-level legalization movement. For example, a federally funded report that was released last month found that teen marijuana use fell from 2019 to 2021—and hit a record low since 2011.

Another concern for the international board is the impact of legalization on the illicit cannabis trade, the report says. While it’s the “objective” of member nations that pursue legalization to minimize the influence of illegal sales, INCB said that there’s a lack of uniformity in the results of that policy change.

It said that “the market for illicit supply persisted in all legalizing jurisdictions, albeit to varying extents, reaching from approximately 40 percent in Canada to nearly 50 percent in Uruguay and 75 percent in California.”

“In the United States, although the legalizing states intended to eliminate or diminish the illicit cannabis economy and the related organized crime, the illicit market continues to thrive,” it says. “It is difficult to fully assess the size of the illicit market because all its activities are ‘underground’ and not well known.”

Missing from the board’s analysis, however, is the fact that prior to legalization, 100 percent of cannabis sales took place in the unregulated, illicit market. And states aren’t turning a blind eye to the problem. California, for instance, has made further stamping out the illegal trade a regulatory priority.



“Legalization has led to a new legal cannabis market in the legalizing jurisdictions, attracting the interest of large corporations, which see the potential for growth and opportunity for investment,” it noted.

“The causality between legalization and statistical changes in the respective jurisdiction is often not clear. However, one can say, in general terms, that legalization has not achieved the objectives pursued by its proponents. It can be observed that legalization has not succeeded in overcoming the drug problems encountered in legalizing jurisdictions and worldwide. In those jurisdictions, consumption of cannabis is still higher than in others and prevalence of use is apparently increasing more rapidly than in nonlegalizing jurisdictions, with noticeable health consequences. Legalization has not been able to dissuade youth from consuming cannabis. Illicit markets have been partly reduced, but they still survive and flourish in some countries. Organized crime has been widely replaced by an expanding cannabis industry which aims to make profit by increasing sales without regard for public health.”

So far, member nations that have moved forward with legalization have not faced penalties by UN.

In 2020, Canada sent comments to the drug enforcement board defending its legal cannabis law, but that hasn’t moved the needle with the international group. Those comments came about two years after INCB warned its membership not to take exactly the step that Canada did.

 

[Baron23]

How ‘equity’ ruined Cannabis legalization in New York ​

New York’s legal weed experiment is going about as poorly as possible.​

Earlier this week, the state finally signed off on a handful of new dispensary licenses, a full two years after legalization.

Illegal pot shops, meanwhile, have gotten so common — and so attractive to criminals — that Gov. Hochul has asked Albany to approve five-figure fines and tough enforcement powers to help shut them down.

It remains to be seen whether any state can legalize marijuana without serious downsides.

But New York’s attempt has been particularly disastrous.

This is in large part because rather than prioritizing tax revenue or public health in the legalization process, Albany put progressive-tinged “social justice” strategies front and center in its policy design.

They admit as much.

Hochul has emphasized that New York State’s marijuana industry will benefit those who committed crimes under prohibition.

The state’s Office of Cannabis Management has said that “social and economic equity” is a “major focus” of legalization.

And the New York City Mayor’s Office promised to put equity “at the center” of the budding industry. You get the idea.

Amid all of this woke-speak, one message becomes clear: Cannabis legalization prioritized progressive interest groups over legality and common sense.

And indeed, “equity” has suffused every aspect of legalization — to catastrophic results.

First, the numbers: There are just seven licensed dispensaries in all of New York State, three of which are within half a mile of each other.

Why so slow? A federal injunction – now lifted – delayed dispensary roll-out in parts of Upstate New York. Far worse, however, is the state’s entire approach to licensing.

The first 150 licenses must, by law, be issued to people who had previously been convicted of a marijuana-related offense, or whose family member had been convicted.

Finding, approving, and setting up businesses for such folks takes time — lots of it.

Nobly intentioned? Sure.

But if we want businesses to run smoothly, the state should have prioritized applicants with a history of entrepreneurship and business acumen, not breaking the law – even if those laws demanded a rethink.

Instead, it’s doubling the number of licenses open only to former criminals.

The state has also said it will aim to award “50% of all adult-use licenses to social and economic equity applicants,” including minority- and women-owned businesses.

Yet again, applicants will continue to be selected based on their sex or skin color, not on who can best run a business.

With marijuana legal but virtually no legal retailers operating, New York has unsurprisingly seen a wave of unlicensed pot shops pop up.

Not only are these outlets polluting eyesores; but they’re also magnets for crime.

The NYPD has said that last year pot shops were robbed nearly 600 times. That they sell freely to kids isn’t helping either.

Why have the shops grown unchecked?

Because the consequences for running them – a paltry $250 fine — are essentially nonexistent.

Raided shops keep reopening, including one right across from City Hall. Hochul and Adams are now seeking tougher tools to shut them down.

But it’s unlikely that the legislature, which just rebuked the governor’s chief judge pick for not being left-wing enough, will endorse a crackdown on pot.

Beyond the faulty focus on equity, enforcement agencies need the ability to give more than just a wrist slap to illegal pot shops.

Gov. Hochul’s proposal to dramatically increase fines and expand inspection powers is a good start.

New York City should also clarify the Sheriff’s authority to inspect pot shops, as some deputies have raised questions about their ability to do so.

New Yorkers themselves also need to consider why they tolerate such flagrant law-breaking when it comes to pot, but almost no other businesses.

Unlicensed shops aren’t unique to New York; they pop up everywhere pot has been legalized, contributing to anemic legal industry sales.

The reason is simple economics: Without the need to comply with costly regulations, the illegal shops are just cheaper — savings they pass on to their customers.

And under the current legalization scheme, unlicensed shops are insulated from the enforcement efforts pro-pot advocates inevitably decry as evil and racist.

A well-designed marijuana market — insofar as there is such a thing — minimizes criminal activity and maximizes tax revenue, which the state then reinvests in public health.

But New York’s attempt to center “equity” in its legalization agenda has produced the opposite effect, maximizing criminal activity and minimizing legitimate revenue generation.

Some marijuana market regulations are essential: no selling (or advertising) to kids, clear supply chains, controls on potency, etc. True, the costs of these regulations will be passed on to customers, making the gray market cheaper and more attractive.

But the more the state attempts to regulate the industry for “social justice,” the higher these regulatory costs will be in the long run.

This is why the state needs to stop handing out licenses to people as a form of “reparations” and start looking for licensees who can run a real business.

That will ultimately deliver meaningful — and lasting — cannabis reform.

 

[CarolKing]

All these states have the same problem in the beginning. Lack of stores and plenty of demand which makes prices high. Repeat what has been successful from other places. Quit trying to reinvent the wheel. Put folks in place on your cannabis boards that know cannabis. Or whoever are your facilitator.

 

[CarolKing]

At Stanwood High School in WA state a vape cartridge was filled with oil that included heroin. It was bought in the black market. Evidently is was a cartridge that could be refilled.

rssfeeds.king5.com: «Stanwood mom warns parents after son unknowingly gets sold heroin-laced vape cartridge»

News that are related to the article rssfeeds.king5.com: «Stanwood mom warns parents after son unknowingly gets sold heroin-laced vape cartridge» from papers and blogs.

newstral.com

 

[Baron23]

IMO, this issue....this contradiction between enumerated Constitutional individual right vs bureaucracy rule (yeah, that would be the fucking DEA) has been outstanding for an unconscionable and unjustifiable time thus demonstrating the essential and venal cowardice of all three branches of our Federal government.

Texas Federal Court rules firearm ban on Marijuana users unconstitutional ​

A policy long criticized by cannabis advocates, the federal ban on cannabis consumers owning firearms could be on its last legs in Texas.​

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has ruled that banning cannabis users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional. The court also said the legal principle applies to the sale and transfer of guns. The win was delivered through Paola Connelly, an El Paso resident convicted of separate charges for possessing and transferring a firearm in 2021 while admitting to consuming cannabis.

This recent case in Texas is one of at least four active federal cases surrounding the government’s policy on cannabis and gun ownership.

Under current federal law, cannabis consumers are prohibited from owning or purchasing firearms because they are “an unlawful user or addicted to” a controlled substance. It’s a ban that applies to all cannabis users, including those in states with legal medical and/or recreational cannabis laws.

Another Federal Ruling Against the Ban​

Judge Kathleen Cardone granted a motion to reconsider the case, and charges were ultimately dismissed last week. The court had previously issued a conviction, though it said a more recent ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit merited another look. That case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, found that any firearm restrictions must be consistent with the Second Amendment’s original 1791 ratification.

“Quite simply, there is no historical tradition of denying individuals their Second Amendment rights based solely (or even partially) on the use of marijuana,” the case filing states.

Judge Cardone often disputed the Justice Department’s attempts to fall back on its typical arguments around cannabis consumption and gun ownership, like comparing the ban to laws against operating a firearm under the influence of alcohol or gun possession by “unvirtuous” people. She also cited President Biden’s 2022 decision to mass pardon people with federal cannabis possession charges.

“…Even if Connelly were convicted of simple marijuana possession, that conviction would be expunged by the blanket presidential pardon of all such marijuana possessions that, like Connelly’s, took place before October 6, 2022,” the ruling states, even though Biden’s clemency action didn’t actually expunge records.

Dismantling the DOJ’s Argument in Texas​

The court added that, since cannabis possession would only rise to a misdemeanor under federal law, “any historical tradition of disarming ‘unlawful’ individuals does not support disarming Connelly for her alleged marijuana use.” The court challenged the Justice Department’s argument in favor of the ban given that the defendant wasn’t ever convicted of a cannabis offense. Rather, she just admitted to using cannabis.

“In short, the historical tradition of disarming ‘unlawful’ individuals appears to mainly involve disarming those convicted of serious crimes after they have been afforded criminal process,” the ruling reads. “Section 922(g)(3), in contrast, disarms those who engage in criminal conduct that would give rise to misdemeanor charges, without affording them the procedural protections enshrined in our criminal justice system. The law thus deviates from our Nation’s history of firearm regulation.”

The court also challenged the assertion that cannabis users are inherently dangerous, citing the fact that more than 20 states now have legal adult-use cannabis and it’s now a regularly used substance by millions of Americans.

“It strains credulity to believe that taking part in such a widespread practice can render an individual so dangerous or untrustworthy that they must be stripped of their Second Amendment rights,” Cardone said.

Similar Ruling From a Neighboring State​

The case follows another recent Oklahoma City ruling in February, where a federal judge similarly ruled that the firearm ban on cannabis users is unconstitutional and must not be enforced by prosecutors.

That case involved Jared Michael Harrison, who was arrested by police in Lawton, Oklahoma after officers found cannabis and a loaded revolver in his car during a traffic stop. Harrison told police he was heading to work at a legal medical cannabis business but did not have a state-issued ID card showing he was authorized to use medicinal cannabis.

Harrison’s attorneys challenged the charge, similarly arguing that the firearm ban is not consistent with the country’s tradition of regulating firearms, also citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick similarly rejected the argument that Harrison’s status as a cannabis user “justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm” and ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership “is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison.” Wyrick added that cannabis use “not in and of itself a violent, forceful or threatening act.”

 

[Baron23]

New Congressional Bill Would Provide Federal Tax Relief For Marijuana Businesses By Amending IRS’s 280E Code​

A congressman has reintroduced a bill that would amend an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E to allow state-legal marijuana businesses to finally take federal tax deductions that are available to companies in other industries.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, founder of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, refiled the Small Business Tax Equity Act on Monday. The measure been introduced several times over recent sessions but has never advanced to a hearing or vote.

“State-legal cannabis businesses are denied equal treatment under 280E,” Blumenauer said in a press release. “They cannot fully deduct the cost of doing business which means they pay two or three times as much as a similar non-cannabis business.”

“This grotesquely unfair treatment incentivizes people to cut corners,” he said. “If Congress wants to get serious about supporting small businesses and ending the illicit cannabis market, it is commonsense that we allow legal cannabis operations to deduct business expenses, just like any other industry.”

The IRS code that’s currently in place, 280E, makes it so businesses whose activities consist of “trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act)” cannot make deduct most business expenses from their federal taxes or receive tax credits, even though they are still obligated to pay taxes like any other company.

The provision was enacted in 1982 as a way to prevent drug traffickers from writing expenses off their taxes, but it is widely applied today on state-licensed marijuana growers, processors and dispensaries, greatly increasing their effective tax rates as compared to businesses in other industries.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) filed the bill at the end of the last Congress, but there wasn’t enough time to take it up in committee.

Mace, along with Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Dave Joyce (R-OH), are cosponsoring the new version this year alongside Blumenauer.

National Cannabis Industry Association CEO Aaron Smith said on Monday that the “unfair application of the outdated 280E provision on state-licensed cannabis businesses is preventing our industry from reaching its full economic potential and our ability to successfully replace criminal markets in accordance with the will of the voters and state legislators that have implemented modern state marijuana programs across the country.”

For the time being, the marijuana industry continues to face tax policy challenges under the umbrella of prohibition. And as the Congressional Research Service (CRS) noted in a 2021 report, IRS “has offered little tax guidance about the application of Section 280E.”

IRS did provide some guidance in an update in 2020, explaining that while cannabis businesses can’t take standard deductions, 280E does not “prohibit a participant in the marijuana industry from reducing its gross receipts by its properly calculated cost of goods sold to determine its gross income.”

The IRS update seemed to be responsive to a Treasury Department internal watchdog report that was released in 2020. The department’s inspector general for tax administration had criticized IRS for failing to adequately advise taxpayers in the marijuana industry about compliance with federal tax laws. And it directed the agency to “develop and publicize guidance specific to the marijuana industry.”

Bipartisan and bicameral lawmakers have been working for years to pass legislation that would treat the cannabis sector like other legitimate enterprises, namely through the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act that’s passed the House on a number of occasions only to stall out in the Senate.

 

[Baron23]

TL/DR version...and pretty much what I've been bitching about for years. Bold and underlined added by me.

“No one should be forced to choose between their rights: you have a right to bear arms, and in many states, you have a right to use cannabis,” Mast said in a press release. “Congress needs to legislate based on reality, and the reality is that those who legally use marijuana are being treated as second-class citizens. That’s not acceptable. Government exists to protect the rights of the people, and that’s what this bill does.”​

GOP Congressman Files Bill To Allow Marijuana Consumers To Buy Guns


A Republican congressman filed a bill on Thursday’s 4/20 cannabis holiday to protect the Second Amendment rights of people who use marijuana in legal states, allowing them to purchase and possess firearms that they’re currently prohibited from having under federal law.


Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, reintroduced the Gun Rights and Marijuana (GRAM) Act on Thursday—one of the latest in a series of cannabis proposals to be filed in the run-up to the 4/20 holiday.


The bill—which was previously led by the late Rep. Don Young (R-AK), who Mast replaced as a Cannabis Caucus leader—would amend federal statute to make it so marijuana consumers would not be considered an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance if they reside in a state that legalized cannabis.


As it stands, people who admit to being an “unlawful user” of marijuana are barred from buying, possessing or selling firearms—a federal policy that’s recently been challenged in several federal courts and deemed unconstitutional by at least two.


“No one should be forced to choose between their rights: you have a right to bear arms, and in many states, you have a right to use cannabis,” Mast said in a press release. “Congress needs to legislate based on reality, and the reality is that those who legally use marijuana are being treated as second-class citizens. That’s not acceptable. Government exists to protect the rights of the people, and that’s what this bill does.”


Federal law enforcement doesn’t actively screen gun owners for substance use, but a question on a U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) form asks would-be gun purchasers: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” It’s a felony to lie on the form.


The gun and marijuana issue has come to the fore in a number of federal courts over the past year, with the Justice Department being forced to defend the ban’s constitutionality, especially in light of a U.S. Supreme Court case where justices generally created a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights.


In February, a federal judge declared that the ban prohibiting people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, saying that the federal government’s justification for upholding the law is “concerning.” DOJ is appealing that decision.


“Addressing this issue is of particular importance to the veteran community,” Mast said. “No veteran that I know wants to be forced to choose between a viable treatment option for conditions like PTSD, and the ability to protect themselves and their families. The GRAM Act is about ensuring no one has to make that choice.”

The congressman also defended the legislation during an appearance on Fox Business, reiterating that cannabis consumers are “being treated like second-class citizens—whether it’s with gun ownership or whether it’s with the banking system or a host of different things.”


“We need to move past this era of prohibition just like happened with alcohol previously in our country’s history,” he said. “That has to be the point that we get to with cannabis use in America.”


Mast is also cosponsoring a separate bill from Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV) this session that would more narrowly allow medical cannabis patients to purchase and possess firearms.

 

[CarolKing]

I don’t know how practical this would be? I had heard some years back about this

Keurig founder Peter Dragone has joined the executive team of a startup cannabis accessories maker in Kentucky that’s aiming to begin its first funding round.

Dragone, who introduced K-Cups to the market in 2004, has taken a role as equity partner of Convenient Cannabis, the maker of Puffsy pods.



The single-serve pods, made of recyclable glass, are preloaded with cannabis and fit most standard bongs and pipes.

Dragone is not an investor in Convenient Cannabis, according to Convenient Cannabis CEO and founder Zechariah Corcimiglia.

Keurig Founder Peter Dragone Joins Convenient Cannabis LLC as Equity

Peter Dragone brings years of experience to Convenient Cannabis LLC. Acting as a CFO for a number of start-ups

mgmagazine.com

 

[Baron23]

Federal Law Enforcement Agency Says State-Legal Marijuana Activity Will No Longer Automatically Disqualify Job Applicants​

A federal law enforcement agency has updated its employment policy to make it so applicants who’ve grown, manufactured or sold marijuana in compliance with state laws while serving in a “position of public responsibility” will no longer be automatically disqualified—whereas those who did so in violation of state cannabis policies won’t be considered.

The new policy change by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)—which makes an explicit distinction protecting applicants abiding by state legalization laws, as compared to those whose cannabis activity was unsanctioned by the state—is particularly notable given ongoing federal marijuana prohibition.

The federal government has long maintained that its drug laws supersede state laws. Yet ATF, which is part of the Department of Justice, has now enacted an employment policy that treats state-legal marijuana activity in the cannabis industry differently.

Under ATF’s “Automatic Drug Disqualifiers” section of its revised employment policy that was posted this month, there’s now a “Marijuana/Cannabis” subsection.

Here’s what it says:

Use within a state/locality that has legalized marijuana use or use for legal medical purposes, is still considered illegal by federal law. The following activities are automatically disqualifying:

• • Distribution, sale, or transport for profit, cultivation, or manufacturing of marijuana without state/local legal authorization while in a position of public responsibility. [Italicized emphasis added.]

There’s also updated language in another section on illicit drug-related disqualifying factors overall:

Illegal Drugs/Controlled Substances (excluding Marijuana and prescribed controlled substances)

The following activities are automatically disqualifying:

• • Use of illegal (non-prescribed) anabolic steroids while in a position of public responsibility and within the last five (5) years.
  • Use and purchase for personal use within the last five (5) years or while in a position of public responsibility.
  • Addictive usage within the last five (5) years or while in a position of public responsibility.
    Distribution, sale, or transporting controlled substances, for profit, without legal authorization.
  • Manufacturing any illegal controlled substance.

ATF applicants can still potentially be denied employment for state-legal cannabis activities under the new policy, particularly when it occurs while serving in a position of public responsibility; it’s just that such activity is no longer automatically disqualifying. In contrast, involvement with marijuana commerce that’s not sanctioned by state or local law while serving in a position of public responsibility will get someone kicked out of the agency’s hiring process no matter what, according to the policy update.

“The ATF Drug Policy refers only to activities that are automatically disqualifying,” an agency spokesperson told Marijuana Moment in an email. “ATF reviews most policies on an annual basis, and this policy was updated this month.”

ATF’s previous drug policy for applicants, which is archived online, did not specifically mention marijuana but said that the agency would “apply established internal guidelines to determine whether an applicant’s past drug activities disqualify him/her from hiring consideration.”

It’s also notable that the policy update comes amid multiple federal lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the federal ban that’s kept cannabis consumers, including those operating in compliance with state law, from legally possessing or purchasing firearms. ATF is in charge of enforcing that policy via a question on gun purchase forms.

In 2020, ATF issued an advisory specifically targeting Michigan that requires gun sellers to conduct federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers because it said the state’s cannabis laws had enabled “habitual marijuana users” and other disqualified individuals to obtain firearms illegally.

The agency isn’t the only one to reform employment policies as the state-level marijuana legalization movement has continued to expand.

Late last year, draft documents obtained by Marijuana Moment showed that the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was proposing to replace a series of job application forms for prospective workers in a way that would treat past cannabis use much more leniently than under current policy.

The Biden administration instituted a policy in 2021 authorizing waivers to be granted to certain workers who admit to prior marijuana use, but certain lawmakers have pushed for additional reform.

For example, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said at a congressional hearing on marijuana legalization last year that he intended to file a bill aimed at protecting federal workers from being denied security clearances over marijuana.

Last year, the nation’s largest union representing federal employees adopted a resolution in support of marijuana legalization and calling for an end to policies that penalize federal workers who use cannabis responsibly while they’re off the clock in states where it is legal.

The director of national intelligence (DNI) said in 2021 that federal employers shouldn’t outright reject security clearance applicants over past use and should use discretion when it comes to those with cannabis investments in their stock portfolios.

FBI also updated its hiring policies that year to make it so candidates are only automatically disqualified from joining the agency if they admit to having used marijuana within one year of applying. Previously, prospective employees of the agency could not have used cannabis within the past three years.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) also took a different approach to its cannabis policy in 2020, stating in a notice that it would not be testing drivers for CBD. However, DOT has more recently reiterated that the workforce it regulates is prohibited from using marijuana and will continue to be tested for THC, regardless of state cannabis policy.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) sent a letter to the head of DOT last year, stating that the agency’s policies on drug testing truckers and other commercial drivers for marijuana are unnecessarily costing people their jobs and contributing to supply chain issues.

The Environment Protection Agency (EPA) also emphasized to its workers that they are prohibited from using marijuana—or directly investing in the industry—no matter the state law or changes in “social norms” around cannabis.

While the Biden administration did institute a waiver policy meant to provide discretion as it relates to federal employment and past cannabis use, it’s come under fire from advocates following early reports that the White House fired or otherwise punished dozens of staffers who were honest about their history with marijuana.

Then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki attempted to minimize the fallout, without much success, and her office released a statement in 2021 stipulating that nobody was fired for “marijuana usage from years ago,” nor has anyone been terminated “due to casual or infrequent use during the prior 12 months.”

Meanwhile, Republican congressional lawmakers have filed two bills so far this session that focus on gun and marijuana policy.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, filed legislation last week to protect the Second Amendment rights of people who use marijuana in legal states, allowing them to purchase and possess firearms that they’re currently prohibited from having under federal law.

Mast is also cosponsoring a separate bill from Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV) this session that would more narrowly allow medical cannabis patients to purchase and possess firearms.

 

[CarolKing]

Activist Preserves Legacy Of Husband Who Won Right To Medical Marijuana Grown By The Feds 45 Years Ago

Forty-five years ago, a tenacious glaucoma patient named Robert Randall made history, becoming the first person in the U.S. under prohibition to secure a legal supply of cannabis that was grown, processed and delivered by the federal government itself. Now his widow, Alice O’Leary Randall, a...

www.marijuanamoment.net

Forty-five years ago, a tenacious glaucoma patient named Robert Randall made history, becoming the first person in the U.S. under prohibition to secure a legal supply of cannabis that was grown, processed and delivered by the federal government itself.

 

[Baron23]

States That Legalize Marijuana See Reduced Tobacco Use, Study Finds​

While some public health experts have expressed concerns that the legalization of marijuana could fuel a rise in the use of tobacco products, a new study instead concludes that state-level cannabis reforms are mostly associated with “small, occasionally significant longer-run declines in adult tobacco use.”

Researchers did find “consistent evidence” that the adoption of state recreational marijuana laws (RMLs) led to a slight uptick in cannabis use among adults—of between about two and four percentage points, depending on the data source—but tobacco didn’t follow that trend.

If the apparent substitution effect from cigarettes to marijuana that’s being driven by legalization were extended nationally, it could result in healthcare cost savings worth more than $10 billion per year, the study concluded.

“We find little empirical support for the hypothesis that RMLs increase the net consumption of tobacco, as measured across a wide range of combustible tobacco products as well as [e-cigarettes],” they wrote. “Rather, the preponderance of evidence points to small, occasionally significant longer-run declines in adult tobacco use.”

“We conclude that [recreational marijuana laws] may generate tobacco-related health benefits.”

Authors at Bentley, San Diego State and Georgia State universities published the findings in the Journal of Health Economics last month, calling the report “the first to comprehensively examine the impact of recreational marijuana legalization on tobacco use.” The study draws on federal data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).

At a time of surging public support for cannabis legalization, the researchers write, “public health experts have taken a more cautious approach, urging more research to assess the health benefits and costs of marijuana use, as well as to understand potentially unintended consequences on other health behaviors.” Some have raised concerns that reform could lead to the “renormalization” of smoking, potentially reversing nearly half a century of declining cigarette use.

Cigarette smoking rates have fallen dramatically since the first Surgeon General’s report in 1964, with rates among male adults dropping from 55 percent to 16 percent and female smoking rates declining from 35 percent to 12 percent. “While the causes of these declines are the subject of much debate,” the study acknowledges, “most public health experts seek to preserve the health gains.”

Authors of the new study acknowledge that their analysis of the NSDUH data shows that legalization has “a (largely) statistically insignificant 0.5 to 0.7 percentage-point decline in tobacco use,” which includes cigarettes, pipe tobacco, smokeless tobacco and cigars. “However, this null effect masks small, lagged tobacco effects of RMLs. Three or more years following the adoption of an RML, we find that adult tobacco use falls by approximately 1.4 to 2.7 percentage-points.”

Looking specifically at cigarette use, they continue, “Again, while the overall treatment effect is relatively small…three or more years following RML enactment, we find evidence of a statistically significant 1.1 to 1.3 percentage-point decline in cigarette use among adults.”

To check, the study also analyzed states that legalized cannabis earlier than others. “The results,” it says, “provide some support for the hypothesis that tobacco use declined in several of the earliest adopting states, most notably in Colorado and Washington, which are also those states that saw the largest increases in marijuana use following RML enactment.”

Legalization “is associated with a lagged reduction in electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) use, consistent with the hypothesis that ENDS and marijuana are substitutes.”

The researches said that the reduction in tobacco use in legal states is “primarily concentrated among men and for RMLs that are accompanied by open recreational dispensaries,” findings that they say are “consistent with the hypothesis that recreational marijuana and tobacco may be substitutes for some adults.”

The paper notes that potential health care cost savings resulting from substitution away from cigarettes and toward cannabis “could be substantial.”

“[O]ur estimates suggest a reduction in smoking prevalence by as many as 5.1 million, translating into tobacco-related healthcare cost savings of about $10.2 billion per year,” it concludes.

Because most states with legal cannabis first passed medical marijuana laws (MMLs), the study notes it’s possible that “the RML effects could be conflated with the long-run effects of MMLs,” especially in light of the delays states often see between legalizing medical marijuana and actually beginning legal sales.

Analyses of PATH data, meanwhile, yielded similar conclusions. “Consistent with the NSDUH, we find no evidence that RML adoption significantly increased prior-month combustible tobacco use or [e-cigarette] use,” authors write. “While estimated lagged effects are positive in most cases for cigarette use, cigar use, and all combustible tobacco products, the effects are uniformly below a percentage-point—often under 0.5 percentage-points—and not statistically distinguishable from zero at conventional levels.”

Further, the study found “no evidence that RML adoption significantly increases initiation of tobacco products among baseline non-users or decreases cessation among baseline tobacco users.”

Legalization was associated with a 1.2 to 1.3 percentage point increase in joint use of tobacco and marijuana, however, which researchers said attributed primarily to “marijuana initiation among the sub-population of individuals who were already using tobacco prior to the policy shift.”

According to a Gallup poll published last year, more Americans now smoke marijuana than cigarettes. A Monmouth University survey from October, meanwhile, found that most Americans believe alcohol and tobacco are more dangerous than cannabis.

And a federally funded study published earlier this year found that CBD could help reduce nicotine cravings and help people quit.

 

[Helios]

More Employees Are Reporting To Work High

After analyzing more than 6 million urine tests from workers in 2022, the company determined that 4.3% were positive

leaders.com

 

[Baron23]

More Employees Are Reporting To Work High

After analyzing more than 6 million urine tests from workers in 2022, the company determined that 4.3% were positive

leaders.com

My view is the same as that with coming in high on alcohol. If you are buzzed at work....and I don't care how legal it is....you are going to be sent home if not sent packing all together.

I do recognize, however, that having thc metabolytes in your urine is absolutely NOT evidence of actually being high at that time do it long life in the body. Last time I cleared a urine test (shit, well over 10 years ago) it took...at least 6 weeks if not 8 (can't remember exactly) to clear one of those drug store home test kits made for parents to use to bust their kid.

 

[Baron23]

Where Presidential Candidate Ron DeSantis Stands On Marijuana​

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has officially announced that he’s running for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
The candidate’s marijuana policy record is fairly mixed. While he opposes cannabis legalization, he supported several pieces of reform legislation during his time in Congress and has taken steps to build on Florida’s medical marijuana program as governor.

As a general theme, DeSantis seems to support the right of states to set their own cannabis policies, even if he personally draws the line at medical marijuana and finds the plant’s smell “putrid.”
DeSantis is one candidate in a growing pool of GOP presidential hopefuls whose views on cannabis policy vary significantly. His competitors for the Republican nomination include former President Donald Trump, U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R)
Here’s where Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis stands on marijuana:

Legislation And Policy Actions​

Congress (January 2013-September 2018)
As a member of the House, DeSantis had the opportunity to vote on several pieces of cannabis reform legislation—including proposals related to marijuana banking, state protections and industrial hemp.
In a plus for advocates, the then-congressman consistently voted in favor of spending bill amendments to protect state medical and recreational cannabis programs, as well as hemp and CBD laws, from federal interference in 2014 and 2015.

However, he voted against a 2014 proposal to prohibit federal funds from being used to penalize banks that work with state-legal marijuana businesses. And he also repeatedly opposed legislation to allow doctors at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to recommend medical cannabis to patients.
In 2013, DeSantis supported an amendment to “allow institutions of higher education to grow or cultivate industrial hemp for the purpose of agricultural or academic research.”

During the five years he spent in the House, DeSantis did not sponsor or cosponsor any marijuana or broader drug policy reform bills.

Florida governor (January 2019-present)

One of the most significant cannabis actions that DeSantis has taken as governor was his move to eliminate the ban on smokable marijuana products for medical cannabis patients, shortly after he took office in 2019.

He implored the legislature to quickly send him legislation to fulfill the will of voters who approved medical marijuana legalization by removing the smoking ban, otherwise he would drop an appeal of a lower court ruling that would maintain its determination about the unconstitutionality of the prohibition.

“Florida voters overwhelmingly approved medical marijuana in 2016, and I believe the subsequent legislation has been inadequate,” DeSantis said. “Voters intended for medical marijuana to be dispensed in a way that would best benefit the patient, smoking included.

A couple months later, lawmakers did send him reform legislation that removed the smoking ban, and he made good on his pledge to drop the court case. He thanked legislators for “working with me to ensure the will of the voters is upheld.”

Also in 2019, the governor signed a bill establishing an industrial hemp program in the state and allowing the retail sale of hemp extracts containing up to 0.3 percent THC by dry weight.
Also that year, he approved eight additional medical cannabis nurseries to cultivate marijuana for patients in the state.

DeSantis signed legislation in 2022 that exempts certain medical cannabis-related records from public records disclosure requirements. That includes records related to a patient or caregiver’s personal identifying information and a doctor’s federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) number and other identifying information.
He also signed a bill in 2021 that deschedules federally approved CBD medication at the state level.
The governor’s budget request for 2023 called for increasing funding for medical cannabis regulators. In 2021, he urged lawmakers to pass a budget that includes $4 million for medical cannabis lab testing.
Under DeSantis’s administration, Florida’s Department of Health in 2022 issued an emergency rule that limits patients to 24,500 mg of non-smokable cannabis for a 70-day supply. It also sets dosage caps based on different forms of administration like edibles and tinctures. Further, patients can only purchase up to 2.5 ounces of smokable cannabis in a 35-day period.
Another emergency rule that was implemented last year increases medical cannabis business licensing fees.
DeSantis has not yet acted on calls from lawmakers and officials to facilitate cannabis clemency after President Joe Biden granted a mass marijuana pardon last year to people who’ve committed federal possession offenses.

He also faced criticism after canceling a Clemency Board meeting last year at which former Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried (D) wanted members to consider approving mass marijuana pardons.

On The Campaign Trail​

DeSantis has not publicly discussed marijuana policy issues since announcing his candidacy.

Previous Quotes And Social Media Posts​

While DeSantis took steps to implement medical marijuana legalization per the will of voters, he personally opposes broader legalization, and he told WJHG in 2019 that the reform will not be enacted “while I’m governor.”
“I mean, look, when that is introduced with teenagers and young people, I think it has a really detrimental effect to their well-being and their maturity,” he said, even as polls shows strong majority support for legalization.
“I am going to implement the will of the voters,” DeSantis said in 2019. “They passed medical marijuana overwhelmingly, and my view is is we have a process in Florida when that happens, then we shouldn’t play games with it. We should just simply implement it.”

“Now I’m not somebody that thinks having recreational marijuana for young people is good. I think that will make it more difficult for people to succeed,” he added. “And I think parents right now—it’s very difficult to raise children in the modern technological environment, you’ve got so many different distractions, to throw marijuana into it and make it more prevalent, I think would make it harder for parents. But on the medical side, we’ve got to respect the will of the voters.”
In 2022, DeSantis also said that he wants lawmakers to pass legislation that would increase the fees for medical cannabis business licenses, saying “these are very valuable licenses,” and he’d “charge them an arm and a leg” because “everybody wants these licenses.”

Also in 2022, the governor complained that he thinks marijuana “smells so putrid,” adding that he believes jurisdictions that have moved to legalize cannabis “have ended up regretting it.”
“But I could not believe the pungent odor that you would see in some of these places and I don’t want to see that here,” he said. “I want people to be able to breathe freely.”
He said that governors “can’t just do that,” referring to using executive authority to legalize marijuana. However, he said he personally doesn’t believe in incarcerating people over cannabis.
“I’ve never thought that somebody who was caught using it—we’re not going to use the prison system for that,” he said. “But that’s different than kind of wanting it to be prevalent like you see in some of these other areas.”
In 2021, he said that cannabis that’s available today contains “a lot of really bad things in it.”
“It’s not necessarily what you would’ve had 30 years ago when someone’s in college and they’re doing something,” he said. “You have some really, really bad stuff in there, so I think having the ability to identify that, I think, that’s safety, and quite frankly when you get into some of that stuff, it’s not medicinal at that point for sure.”
He likened Florida’s medical marijuana program as a “cartel” at one point in 2019, expressing skepticism about the law’s vertical integration requirement for licensees to control their products from seed to sale.
However, he later walked those comments back, reiterating that there was “overwhelming support” for the medical cannabis initiative that voters approved in 2016 and saying “we’ve just got to enact a statute that is going to pass constitutional muster.”
“Some of the things that I criticized, the way they did the organization, as a free-market guy, that wasn’t necessarily something I liked,” he said. “You probably can do a lot of different approaches and it’d still be constitutional.”
Asked about a proposal to cap THC content in cannabis products in 2021, DeSantis said that he had “not endorsed that,” and it’s “not something I’m pushing.”

DeSantis also believes that prohibition and criminalization should be enhanced for certain drugs like fentanyl.

“I think we’re now in a new era with this, the rise of fentanyl, and I think you have to be very, very tough when you’re talking about the supply of fentanyl,” he said in May 2023. “I think that there’s opportunity to do more on interdiction, do more on holding the cartels accountable. But also we focus on the demand side.”
In February 2023, he promoted a video on the dangers of marijuana and other drugs that he said is “designed to pack a punch.”

Last year, a spokesperson for DeSantis criticized the cannabis stock holdings of Fried, the then-agriculture commissioner who was running as a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, saying she was “pushing her own interests ahead of what’s best for the people of Florida.”
Fried routinely clashed with the governor, especially during her gubernatorial bid where she sought to clearly distinguish herself as the pro-cannabis candidate.
“Ron DeSantis doesn’t understand the cannabis space,” Fried told Marijuana Moment last year. “He doesn’t understand that this is a healthcare issue, that this is criminal justice reform, economic opportunities. He doesn’t understand it, and instead wants to say that there is a pungent odor attached to it.”
The governor declined to get involved with a lawsuit that the commissioner filed against the Justice Department, alleging that the federal ban preventing medical cannabis patients from buying firearms is unconstitutional.
A spokesperson also said in 2021 that the governor didn’t support legalizing marijuana to help with economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic.
A 2021 survey found that 40 percent of Florida voters think that the governor cares about medical cannabis patients.
While DeSantis has expressed opposition to marijuana legalization, he hasn’t gone out of his way to personally undermine a campaign that’s actively seeking to place the issue before voters on the 2024 ballot. However, the state’s attorney general did ask the Supreme Court to keep a reform initiative off the ballot in May 2023—as she did with a prior legalization effort, as well.

Personal Experience With Marijuana​

DeSantis doesn’t appear to have public discussed personally using marijuana, though he made abundantly clear that he’s no fan of the smell of cannabis, which he’s described as “putrid.”

Marijuana Under A DeSantis Presidency​

DeSantis has a mixed record on cannabis issues, though he seems generally supportive of the right of states to set their own policies. However, it seems unlikely that he would proactively work to expand marijuana access if elected president.
His congressional votes opposing protections for banks that work with state-legal cannabis businesses and the ability of VA doctors to recommend medical marijuana come as a disappointment for advocates who have been working to secure those incremental reforms and who would like to see a champion for the issue in the Oval Office.
That said, it seems likely that DeSantis as president would take a mostly hands-off approach to cannabis policy reform efforts, as he’s largely done in his capacity as governor.

 

[Helios]

@Baron23 your awesome, I'd cook for you and your family any day man and yes wede have a few shots of something or a few dabs, enjoy the wknd!

 

[Baron23]

Fuck the ATF and the DEA.

And, I actually don't give a flying frak about Hunter Biden, but his case will be interesting to see as the DOJ/ATF defends their position that cannabis users forfeit their 2nd A rights versus...well, the President's son's attorneys arguing it is not longer valid after Bruen.

Hunter Biden’s Attorneys Cite Marijuana And Gun Ruling To Deter Charges On Alleged Federal Form Lying, Reports Say​

Attorneys for President Joe Biden’s son reportedly told Justice Department officials that a recent federal court ruling on gun rights for people who use marijuana should invalidate any charges related to allegations that he lied about his drug use on a federal firearms purchase form.


As federal prosecutors investigate the 2018 handgun purchase, which took place at a time when Hunter Biden disclosed that he was a regular user of crack cocaine, his attorneys are challenging the idea that he could be effectively prosecuted for allegedly saying that he was not an unlawful user of drugs when he filled out the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) form.


Lying on the ATF document is a felony offense—but the constitutionality of the underlying drug question itself has come under scrutiny in several federal courts, at least as far as cannabis is concerned. And according to The New York Times, Biden’s counsel is specifically citing a February ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma that deemed the ban preventing marijuana consumers from buying and possessing firearms to be unconstitutional.


President Biden’s Department of Justice has strongly defended the prohibition in several lawsuits, maintaining that people who use marijuana or any controlled substance are inherently dangerous and unsuited to own guns. If charges are brought against the younger Biden and his defense team challenges the constitutionality of the drug ban—which Politico also reported his lawyers informed DOJ officials they will do—it would set the stage for a novel legal showdown, with the administration forced to defend the policy against the president’s son.


The basis for the district court’s ruling in the marijuana case—as well as the other ongoing lawsuits on cannabis and gun rights—is recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent set in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which says that any gun restrictions must be consistent with the historical context of the Second Amendment’s original 1791 ratification.


The Justice Department is appealing the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. And it’s set to go before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit this month in another case following a challenge to a federal district court ruling that also concerns firearm possession by a person who admitted to being a cannabis consumer.


The president hasn’t directly weighed in on the lawsuits, but he has talked about the ATF policy in the context of his son’s alleged dishonesty on the form.


“This thing about a gun—I didn’t know anything about it,” the president told CNN last year. “But turns out that when he made application to purchase a gun, what happened was he—I guess you get asked—I don’t guess, you get asked a question, are you on drugs, or do use drugs?’ He said no. And he wrote about saying no in his book.”


“So, I have great confidence in my son,” he said. “I love him and he’s on the straight and narrow, and he has been for a couple years now. And I’m just so proud of him.”


As far as ATF is concerned, the marijuana firearms ban is unambiguous and enforceable, including in states where marijuana has been legalized. Shortly after Minnesota’s governor signed a legalization bill into law this week, the agency issued a reminder emphasizing that people who use cannabis are barred from possessing and purchases guns and ammunition “until” federal prohibition ends.


In 2020, ATF issued an advisory specifically targeting Michigan that requires gun sellers to conduct federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers because it said the state’s cannabis laws had enabled “habitual marijuana users” and other disqualified individuals to obtain firearms illegally.


Meanwhile, even as ATF maintains that it must enforce the ban, the agency recently updated its own cannabis employment policy.


The update make it so applicants who’ve grown, manufactured or sold marijuana in compliance with state laws while serving in a “position of public responsibility” will no longer be automatically disqualified—whereas those who did so in violation of state cannabis policies won’t be considered.


Republican congressional lawmakers have filed two bills so far this session that focus on gun and marijuana policy.


Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, filed legislation last month to protect the Second Amendment rights of people who use marijuana in legal states, allowing them to purchase and possess firearms that they’re currently prohibited from having under federal law.


Mast is also cosponsoring a separate bill from Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV) this session that would more narrowly allow medical cannabis patients to purchase and possess firearms.

 

[bulllee]

So dank it's illegal (literally): Man barred from smoking medical weed after neighbor sues​

N'dea Yancey-Bragg
USA TODAY


Following a three-year long legal battle, a Washington, D.C. judge banned a man from smoking medical marijuana in his home after his neighbor filed a lawsuit claiming the smell drifted into her home and made her sick.
Judge Ebony Scott ruled this week that although Thomas Cackett has a license to purchase medical marijuana "he does not possess a license to disrupt the full use and enjoyment of one’s land, nor does his license usurp this long established right."
According to court documents, Josefa Ippolito-Shepherd sued Cackett, who lives in the ground level apartment in an adjacent duplex, and her neighbor Angella Farserotu, who owns the duplex, in 2020. Ippolito-Shepherd alleged in her complaint that Cackett "'smokes marijuana 24/7' and that the 'foul and pungent odor enters and permeates (her) home, making her violently sick ...'"
The case was dismissed in 2021 when a judge found Ippolito-Shepherd "failed to state a claim on the sole ground that smoking marijuana in one’s home is legal in the District of Columbia and therefore cannot constitute an actionable nuisance." But a court of appeals reversed that dismissal, and the case was reopened last year.
Biden pardons marijuana users:Here's where marijuana laws stand in each state
Ippolito-Shepherd, a public health scientist, then testified in D.C. Superior Court that she experienced health issues including severe headaches, nausea, vomiting and respiratory issues within minutes each time Cackett smoked. Ippolito-Shepherd told USA TODAY she complained about the smell in 2018 and 2019 to Cackett and Farserotu, who acknowledged her tenant had been smoking marijuana.
"So the battle begun," Ippolito-Shepherd said.
Ippolito-Shepherd sent more than 200 emails to the defendants urging Cackett to stop smoking marijuana on the property, according to court documents.
Cackett, a restaurant manager, testified that he smokes medical marijuana two to three minutes per day to help him sleep and alleviate pain caused by various health problems. He told the court he smokes outside on the patio to abide by a no-smoking clause in his lease, but that Farserotu allowed him to smoke inside when the weather is bad. Cackett did not immediately respond to a request for comment from USA TODAY.
Scott ruled that Cackett had created a nuisance, but stopped short of awarding damages to Ippolito-Shepherd because she failed to provide medical evidence proving the marijuana smoke made her sick. Scott barred Cackett and anyone who visits him from smoking or burning marijuana in any way that emits an odor at his home or within 25 feet of Ippolito-Shepherd’s home.
Ippolito-Shepherd said while the odor is "horrible" her primary concern is the toxins in the smoke. Secondhand marijuana smoke contains many of the same toxic and cancer-causing chemicals in tobacco smoke – some of which are found in higher amounts – but more research about the effects of needs to be done, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Study:Toxic air pollutants from smoking cannabis with a bong are 4 times worse than cigarettes
"Because I am a public health person, I know the dangers for me, for my lungs, for my family, especially for children, and elderly. They are the two groups that are most vulnerable," she said. "So I am very concerned."
Since filing her lawsuit, she said she's gotten messages from many other people in similar situations. Ippolito-Shepherd stressed that she supports the decriminalization of marijuana, but hopes to advocate for legislative changes that would allow others to resolve similar situations without having to go through the court system.
"Judge Scott's decision is for public health," she said. "it's a big win because now people can use this case to plead for their case."
J.P. Szymkowicz, an attorney representing neighbors in a similar case, told the Washington Post Ippolito-Shepherd’s case does not set a legal precedent like an appellate decision would, but has "persuasive value."
Now that the legal battle has concluded, Ippolito-Shepherd said she plans to have her house thoroughly cleaned and hopes the defendants will obey the judge's ruling.